Read labelled power-curve trends

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description's explicit 'Read-only' statement is valuable, and 'Requires athleteId from list_athletes' reveals a dependency. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing or conflicting optional parameters, date-range handling, or the exact return shape, leaving important operational behavior unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences front-load the main function and add only useful constraints: read-only behavior and the athleteId prerequisite. There is no redundant, vague, or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many neighboring report tools, the description is too thin for complete invocation. It omits date-range semantics, sport/sportFamily precedence, sourceQuality meaning, and output structure, so an agent would likely need to guess on several optional parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides semantic context for athleteId, durations ('selected power durations'), sport/sportFamily ('explicit sport or sport family'), and sourceQuality ('source type'). It does not explain startDate/endDate, durations units, or enum value meanings, so compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation ('Return monthly bests'), the resource ('power durations'), the required scope ('explicit sport or sport family'), and the enrichment ('supporting activity and source type'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling report tools like power_coverage_report and get_ftp_history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives practical invocation context: it is read-only and requires an athleteId obtained from list_athletes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full route-selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.